Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/S. Spel Semi Conductor Limit ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(2)MLJ253

(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated 21.4.2006 in ITA. No. 1378/ Mds/ 05 for assessment year 1998-99.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment year 1998-99. The above Tax Case (Appeal) was admitted on the following questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the income after allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation from income from other sources, especially, when carry forward losses remained? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 32(2) can be given effect to, ignoring the provisions of Section 72(2) of the Income Tax Act?" 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of semi conductors. Admittedly the assessee has claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation from the assessment years 1990-91 to 1997-98 ...

T. Janagan Vs. A. Nandagopal

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ407

(Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 12.4.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, O.S.No.59 of 2005.) This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, as against the judgement and decree dated 12.4.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, O.S.No.59 of 2005, which was for specific performance of an agreement to sell. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.59 of 2005 as against the defendant for specific performance of an agreement to sell with the following prayer: "a) directing the first defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff over the suit property. b) directing the defendant to deliver the suit property lawfully and in the event of refusa...

Anbazhagan and Others Vs. V. Shankar and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)TNMAC454

(Prayer:- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 15.07.2008 made in MCOP.No.3537/2005 by the learned II Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai.) These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the claimants and the Insurance Company respectively against the Judgement and Decree dated 15.07.2008 made in MCOP.No.3537/2005 by the learned II Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,54,948/- as compensation to the appellants in CMA.No.4107/2008, who are the husband, two minor children and father of the deceased Asha, who died in the motor accident that had occurred on 2.3.2005. 2. The brief facts are that on 2.3.2005 at about 8.20 a.m. at Chinmaya Nagar, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.10-B-6043 owned by her younger brother V.Shankar, who is the 1st Respondent in CMA.No.4107/2008 driven by her youngest brother V.Arunachalam for going to the School where she wa...

The Chairman and Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs ...

Court: Chennai

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.2771 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Small Causes Chief Court), Chennai.) The United India Insurance Company questions the award OF compensation on the ground of liability as well as quantum. 2. The facts are some what unusual. On 12.04.2000, when the fifth respondent was riding his two-wheeler, keeping his wife as pillion-rider, an accident took place. She was thrown out. She died. The evidence of P.W.2 disclosed that it is because of her husband's negligent riding. There was no contra evidence. 3. On the death of their mother, her sons and daughter have claimed compensation. Totally, they were awarded Rs.3,50,000/-. 4. Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of accident, the fifth respondent, the rider of the insured bike was not having a valid driving licence. A let...

R.K. Paresh Vs. M/S. Kothari Textiles Limited, Rep. by Its Power of At ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER :Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in connection with C.A.No.283 of 2002, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and set-aside the judgment passed therein dated 24.02.2006 confirmed the judgment passed in C.C.No.1584 of 1997, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai - 8.) The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.995 of 2007, against the judgment made in C.A.No.283 of 2002, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1584 of 1997, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant, for purchase of land. In order to discharge part payment of the said debt, the accused gave two cheques dated 30.11.1996 and 30.12.1996, drawn on ...

M. Jayabalan Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai VI, Chennai in his file C.No.6501(23)/2011-12/VI, and quash the impugned order, dated 24.7.2012.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for and quash the order of the first respondent, dated 24.7.2012, for rejecting the request of the petitioner for withdrawing his Revision Petition, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The petitioner has stated that the first respondent, after rejecting the petition submitted by the petitioner, for the withdrawal of the revision petition, had passed an order on merits. The first respondent had stated that the assessee had requested for the withdrawal of the petition, under ...

R.M. Venkatesan Vs. V. Madheswaran

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER :Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order passed in Crl.A.No.39 of 2004, dated 20.01.2006, on the file of Principal & District and Sessions Court, Namakkal, confirming the order dated 31.03.2004 in C.C.No.242 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode.) The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2006 against the judgment made in Crl.A.No.39 of 2004, on the file of Principal & District and Sessions Court, Namakkal, confirming the order dated 31.03.2004 in C.C.No.242 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 10.12.1999, for his family expenses. In order to discharge the said debt, the accused had issued a cheque dated 22.06.2000, drawn on Union Bank of India, Erode Branch for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to and in favo...

J. Thangam Vs. the Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpor ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 8.9.2008 made in MCOP.No.32/2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC-III) Virudhachalam.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 8.9.2008 made in MCOP.No.32/2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC-III) Virudhachalam, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimant/appellant herein, as against the claim of Rs.3 lakhs for the injuries suffered by her in the motor accident. 2. In this appeal, the Appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation and also the finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the bus belonging to the Respondent Transport Corporation not responsible for the accident. 3. The facts of the case are that on 17.4.2006, when the claimant was alighting from the bus, the bus driver move...

G. Vetrivel and Another Vs. Golden Enclave Owners' Association, Rep by ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7.2.2012 made in W.P.No.23699 of 2010.) COMMON JUDGMENT ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The first respondent in both the writ appeals is a Welfare Association of occupants of the Flats, situated on Poonamallee High Road, Chennai-10. They have initiated the present writ proceedings, before the learned single Judge, praying to close the liquor shop with bar attached functioning in the basement of their flats. Their contention is that their complex is a office cum commercial complex where various offices are situated and many ladies are working. It is also their case that the complex in which the liquor shop cum bar is situated at the Taylors Road junction of Poonamallee High Road and exactly outside the complex, there is a bus stop and in and around the complex, there are several schools, hospitals and temples. 2. According to them, because of the liquor shop, the situation becomes ...

R. Venkatesan and Another Vs. T. Baskar and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(2)TNMAC814

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2011 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.2507 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge of Small Causes Court), Chennai. 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai, passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.2507 of 2008 on 25.11.2011. 2. The Appellants in C.M.A. No.1998 of 2012 and Respondents 1 and in C.M.A. No.2774 of 2012 are the legal heirs of the deceased. The First Respondent in C.M.A.No.1998 of 2012 and the Third Respondent in C.M.A.No.2774 of 2012 is owner of the offending vehicle and the Second Respondent in C.M.A.No.1998 of 2012 and the Appellant in C.M.A.No. 2774 of 2012 is the Insurer thereof. 3. At about 17.45 hours, on 01.06.2008, while the deceased was riding his Motorcycle, a Van bearing registration No.TN-21-E-3966 dashed against him due to whic...